The case involves an appeal by Pere Hernández Ripoll against his dismissal from the Board of Directors of the International Padel Federation (FIP) on April 3, 2018. The dispute originated from his attendance at a General Assembly of the Olympic Committee of Catalonia in September 2017, where his support for an independence referendum in Catalonia, deemed illegal by the Spanish Constitutional Court, led to his removal from the Spanish Padel Federation (FEP). The FEP subsequently requested the FIP to replace Ripoll, arguing his political stance was incompatible with his role. Initially, the FIP resisted, citing its Bye-laws stating Board members serve in a personal capacity, not as national representatives. However, during a General Assembly in October 2017, the FIP voted to dismiss Ripoll, though the vote's validity was contested due to conflicting interpretations of abstentions and voting requirements.
Ripoll challenged the dismissal, arguing it violated FIP statutes and Swiss law, which allows members to contest resolutions within one month. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled that once the FIP General Assembly's decision became final—either due to no appeal being filed or the challenge period expiring—it could not be overturned. The case highlighted procedural discrepancies, including conflicting minutes from the General Assembly and debates over whether abstentions should count toward the majority. The FIP later determined abstentions should not be counted, retroactively declaring the dismissal valid. Ripoll contested this, filing an appeal with CAS, which examined the fairness of the process and the applicability of FIP Bye-laws and Swiss law.
The CAS panel found the General Assembly had initially rejected the FEP's proposal to dismiss Ripoll, as announced at the time, and the subsequent dismissal in April 2018 was invalid. The panel emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and non-discrimination, noting the dismissal appeared politically motivated and violated Olympic principles. It ruled the FIP Board lacked authority to overturn the General Assembly's decision, confirming Ripoll was never lawfully removed. The panel also deemed his request for reinstatement moot, as he had not been formally removed from his position. The case underscores the complexities of sports governance, the binding nature of unchallenged decisions, and the role of CAS in resolving such disputes. The final ruling upheld Ripoll's appeal, nullified the FIP's decision, and affirmed his continued membership on the Board.